RALEIGH — One of the two competing Capitol Hill newspapers, this one creatively called The Hill, had a story out this week detailing what looks like a pattern: donors to Sen. John Edwards’ presidential campaign who turn out to be low-paid paralegals, first-time givers, even partisan Republican employees and family members. The obvious implication is that, as in one alleged case already in Arkansas, trial attorneys supporting the Edwards candidacy have been prevailing on others to give to the senator, perhaps even with a promise of reimbursement. This is left as only an implication, however, with no hard evidence as yet of such illegal collusion and egregious violation of campaign finance laws.
If and when such evidence arises, you can bet we will be treated to the delightful explanation that these donors, virtually all experienced attorneys, did not understand the applicable rules. Ignorance of the law is, indeed, an excuse, they will say.
I know there are many cynical observers who will find it hard to believe that lawyers could be so brazenly uninformed about or dismissive of the law. I’m not one of them. It surprises me not in the least that the sort of trial attorneys gravitating to John Edwards’ campaign would not have bothered to comply with a basic, and relatively straightforward, element of campaign finance law. For many of them, the law is almost infinitely maleable, a tool to fit any number of wildly divergent jobs, and a text the translation of which is almost wholly arbitrary and on a case-by-case basis.
Their previous political favorite, let’s remember, also hailing from Arkansas, thought it appropriate to dissemble his way through a series of legal proceedings — because, of course, the prosecutors in question shouldn’t have been questioning him in the first place. This Artful Dodger, like other lovable rogues, obviously believed that there are regular rules for regular people and special rules for special people — him being, naturally, in the latter camp.
As can be concluded from the recent parade of spurious but successful litigation, typified by the monstrous tobacco settlement a while back, these attorneys are rationalizers, not jurists. They and their clients have a desired outcome, try to pick an unsympathetic target to assuage their own guilt and that of potential jurors, and then back up into whatever claims of fact and law they need to sustain a costly and embarrassing case (at least until the settlement conference).
The final irony of all this is that the rule being evaded — the $2,000 limit per donor to a federal campaign — is unjustified. Citizens in a free society should be able to support whatever candidate or party they like at whatever level they like, as long as other citizens are informed about it. Somehow, though, I’m guessing that most of John Edwards’ supporters wouldn’t support doing away with the contribution limit.
It’s just that they, not being “regular people” (sorry, senator), shouldn’t have to adhere to it. Must be nice to be among the annointed.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.